Distributism in a time of economic insanity.

The heavy duty, or at least heavy, premium American automobile of the golden age of American manufacturing which Trump seems to dream can be restored through tariffs.

In reality, capitalism is based on the idol of money. The lure of gain gradually destroys all social bonds. Capitalism devours itself. Little by little, the market destroys the value of work. Man becomes a piece of merchandise. He is no longer his own. The result is a new form of slavery, a system in which a large part of the population is dependent on a little caste. 

Robert Cardinal Sarah.

I don't use the term "insanity" here lightly.  Donald Trump is, I am convinced, rather dumb, obviously economically ignorant, and suffering from dementia.  That nearly half the country could vote for him is simply beyond me, but they did, and the Republican Party, which was once the party of business has fallen right into line.

I suspect Americans voted for him as they have a poor grasp of economics themselves and see it only through what they've experienced in their own live and that of their immediate predecessors.  Americans, came to view the economy sort of like Billy Joel expressed it in Allentown:

Well, we’re living here in Allentown

And they’re closing all the factories down

Out in Bethlehem they’re killing time

Filling out forms

Standing in line

Well, our fathers fought the second World War

Spent their weekends on the Jersey shore

Met our mothers in the USO

Asked them to dance

Danced with them slow

And we’re living here in Allentown

But the restlessness was handed down

And it’s getting very hard to stay

Well we’re waiting here in Allentown

For the Pennsylvania we never found

For the promises our teachers gave

If we worked hard

If we behaved

So the graduations hang on the wall

But they never really helped us at all

No they never taught us what was real

Iron and coke

Chromium Steel

And we’re waiting here in Allentown

But they’ve taken all the coal from the ground

And the union people crawled away

Every child had a pretty good shot

To get at least as far as their old man got

But something happened on the way to that place

They threw an American flag in our face

Well, I’m living here in Allentown

And it’s hard to keep a good man down

But I won’t be getting up today

 

And it’s getting very hard to stay

And we’re living here in Allentown

Problem is, a sense of economic nostalgia evolving into economic rage doesn't grasp economics at all.

1968 Oldsmobile 442.

The US didn't become an economic and manufacturing giant because of something really special in the American system or some amazing native genius.  It was the simple forces of economics that apply to corporate capitalism, combined with the Second World War, that caused it.

Largescale industry can really only be developed through capitalism or socialism.  In Europe, it was capitalism that introduced it in the form of the Industrial Revolution.  The US as a manufacturing titan came about as the Industrial Revolution came to the US late, not because we were better at it.  The arrival of industrialism in the United Kingdom and a united Germany reflected the eras in which it occurred, and it occurred there first.  Capitalism, in the end, just like socialism, seeks to serve itself, and in the case of capitalism it does it by viewing human beings as consumers, as opposed to the socialist workers, and trying to get them to consume as much as possible.  It does that by seeking to make products faster and cheaper, amongst other strategies.  Seeking efficiency products not only relentlessly advance, but manufacturing methods do as well.  But manufacturing method require massive investment of capital.  Once machines are in place, the economic incentive is to use them as long as they can be, given the investment.  This means that new start ups always have the advantage in equipment, as they are starting with newer stuff.

Added to that, industrial Europe was destroyed during World War Two to a large extent.  The Allied air forces bombed German industry into rubble.  What was left after the war was taken back to the Soviet Union if was east of the Elbe.  The Soviets themselves had suffered massive economic dislocation in of their factories, which were forcibly created in the Communist system.  Japan's industry, which was real, but not nearly as advanced as the other major combatants, had been destroyed by the United States Army Air Force.  The US, however, remained untouched and with a massive consumer demand built up due to the war and the Great Depression, US industry came roaring back and dominated the globe. . . right up until other countries could rebuilt, which very much started to show itself by the late 1960s.

One of the things nearly destroyed during the Second World War was Distributism.  Distributism really came up as a line of thought as a "third way" between Communism and Capitalism during the 1920s and the Great Depression   The tensions that came out of World War One saw the Socialist far left dramatically rise in power and take over the government of Russia, and briefly Hungary.  They vied for control of Germany, and effectively did take over Poland in a modified form.  Wars and struggles broke out in numerous places as Socialism sought to effect global change.  In opposition to it rose not only fascism, but extreme capitalism.  Distributists sought to effect a more sane and humane path.  But when the war came they, and their intellectual fellow travelers the agrarians, put aside their efforts to support the war effort, which in the West meant unleashing capitalism in aid of the war effort.  When the war ended, the economic crisis that it had brought about in Europe and the Cold War caused it to carry on, and very successfully, with Distributism being all but forgotten.

Capitalism, however, if not heavily regulated, results in the same end result as Socialism, single entity control of a machine that serves itself.  In Socialism the machine claims to serve the workers, but claims to identify itself as the workers.  In Capitalism the machine serves itself while claiming to serve "consumers".  Neither system really cares about people at all.

American capitalism, particularly after Ronald Reagan, favored unyielding corporate growth, with one corporate machine eating another.  As foreign economies rebuilt after the war, or started up after the war, corporations naturally moved manufacturing overseas, and the American government did not stop to do anything about it, believing fully in capitalism.  To a certain extent, it favored manufacturing moving overseas as it conceived as many manufacturing jobs as less than ideal, and with some reason to look upon them that way, but just as the nation had a "cheap food" policy that hurt family farmers, it had a "cheap goods" policy that hurt the domestic manufacturing sector.

It can well be argued, and it has been, that something should have been done to arrest the relocation of American manufacturing.  But in reality, that day was long ago.  It was clear in the 1970s what was occuring, but the nation, lead by a much more sober and serious group of politicians, did not elect to intervene.  Now, of course, we have Donald Trump, who doesn't seem to grasp even basic economics and who has made his money, it might be noted, in a highly anti distributist industry.

It's nearly impossible to define what Trump's economic vision is, as he probably doesn't have one.  It seems to be ruled by nostalgia and a complete failure to grasp basic economic principals.  Trump seems to look back on the econmy of his youth as a natural one, and believe that if tariffs are imposed all the old industries will come home.  A very wealthy man, he doesn't seem to care what that does in terms of imposing his tariffs all at once, and if it creates a devastating trade war, so be it.

What Trump has no interest in, however, is disrupting capitalism.  He's okay with whipping corporate entities into relocating into the US, or devastating the economy with the thesis he can make it happen, in what amounts to a type of autarky, but the basic evils of capitalism are of no interest to him.

Some closer to Trump envision something more sinister, it seems, a jump starting of an AI driving manufacturing economy.  The concept is that tariffs will not only pressure industry to relocate here, but when it does, the next stage in the relentless Industrial Revolution evolutionary cycle will occur.  Basically, baseball caps now made in Vietnam (none of them seem to be made here) will be made by robots in the US.  Human laborers in Indochina, who depend on their jobs to feed their families, will be made unemployed while factories owning robots here in the US will profit.

It's immoral.

But what of Distributism?

Some of this probably should make any distributist rethink some basic propositions, as frankly Distributism, like Trump's tariff policy, would have the impact of making some things more expensive.  Maybe many things.  But the economic impact of it would be distinctly different.

Distributism policies, as long noted here, would take the corporations out of retail and agriculture.  In agriculture, for the most part, that would not actually have a great impact on prices, save in certain instances (poultry for sure, perhaps pork).  But it would also have a levelling effect.  Virtually nobody would get fantastically wealthy in these industries, but many rank and file workers would get back up into the real middle class.  Therefore the economic impact would be levelling, more than anything else.

Manufacturing, as we've noted here before, is a much tougher nut to crack.  We've  had some suggestions in the past, but frankly the lesson of the Trump tariffs is that they may frankly be unrealistic.  We'd favor partial employee ownership of larger manufacturing entities.  We could still argue for that, but it's tough for industries like the clothing manufacturing industry, whose workers are mostly overseas.  I suppose it could still be argued for, however.  A person here, however, can't be nativist.  Economically, that is, it can't be argued that ownership in the corporation by Nguyen is any less important than Johnson, all things being equal.

It'd be pretty hard to effect, however, in countries whose economies are state run.  Again, perhaps something could have been done about that, but it would have had to start in 1975, rather than 2025.  Trump's policies, which don't fit this mold, are coming all at once, and fifty years too late. That might suggest, of course, that something could be done, but it would have to be done gradually.

If nothing else, however, Trump and his spastic policies might serve to give Distributism a little voice.  Corporate Capitalism resulted in the situation Trump seeks to address.  There's no reason to believe Corporate Capitalism is going to get us out of it.  Distributists have been warning about capitalisms long term impacts for years. Socialism has demonstrated what its were, and that's what killed it.

Perhaps the Distributist Lament can get a little more heard.

A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 5. What would that look like, and why would it fix anything, other than limiting my choices and lightening my wallet? The Distributist Impact

So, having published this screed over a period of days, and then dropping the topic, we resume with the question.

Why, exactly, do you think this would do a darn thing?

Well, here's why.

A daily example.

When I started this entry on Monday, March 4, I got up, fixed coffee and took the medication I'm now required to as I'm 60 years old, and the decades have caught up with me. The pills are from a locally owned pharmacy, I'd note, not from a national chain, so I did a distributist thing there.  It's only one block away, and I like them. Distributism.

I toasted a bagel, as in my old age the genetic "No" for adults consuming milk has caught up with me.  I got that at Albertson's and I don't know where the bagels are made.  Albertson's is a national chain that's in the process of trying to merge with another national chain. Corporate Capitalism.

The coffee was Boyers, a Colorado outfit. Quasi distributist there.

I put cream cheese on the bagel.  It was the Philadelphia brand. Definitely corporate capitalist there.

I'd already shaved (corporate capitalist, but subsidiarity makes that make sense).

I got dressed and headed to work.  My car was one I bought used, but its make is one that used to be sold by a locally owned car dealer.  No more. The manufacturers really prefer regional dealers, and that's what we have.  All the cars we have come from the dealer when it was locally owned.

I don't have that option anymore.  Corporate Capitalism.

In hitting the highway, I looked up the highway towards property owned by a major real estate developer/landlord.  A type of corporate capitalism.

I drove past some churches and the community college on the way in. Subsidiarity.

I drove past one of the surviving fraternal clubs.  Solidarity.

I drove past the major downtown churches.  Solidarity.

I drove past a collection of small stores, and locally owned restaurants adn bars, and went in the buildings.  Distributism.

I worked the day, occasionally dealing with the invading Colorado or other out of state firms.  Corporate Capitalism.

I reversed my route, and came home.

So, in this fairly average day, in a Western midsized city, I actually encountered a fair number of things that would be absolutely the same in a Distributist society.  But I encountered some that definitely ran very much counter to it.

Broadening this out.

A significant thing was just in how I ate.  And I eat a lot more agrarian than most people do.

The meat in our freezer was either taken by me in the field, or a cow of our own that was culled.  Most people cannot say that. But all the other food was store bought, and it was all bought from a gigantic national chain.  In 1924 Casper had 72 grocers, and it was less than a quarter of its present size.  In 1925, just one year later, it had 99 grocery stores.  The number fell back down to 70 in 1928.

August 1923 list of grocers in Casper that sold Butternut Coffee, which was probably every grocer.

When I was a kid, the greater Casper area had Safeway, Albertson's, Buttreys and an IGA by my recollection, in the national chains.  Locally, however, it had six local grocery stores, including one in the neighboring town of Mills.  One located right downtown, Brattis' was quite large, as was another one located in North Casper.

Now the entire area has one local grocery store and it's a specialty store.

Examples like this abound.  We have a statewide sporting goods store and a local one, but we also have a national one.  The locals are holding their own.  When I was young there was a locally owned store that had actually been bought out from a regional chain, and a national hardware store that sold sporting goods.  So this hasn't changed a lot.

And if we go to sporting goods stores that sell athletic equipment, it hasn't either. We have one locally owned one and used to have two. We have one national chain, and used to have none.

In gas stations, we have a locally owned set of gas stations and the regional chains.  At one time, we only had local stores, which were franchises. The local storefronts might be storefronts, in the case of the national chains, as well.

When I was a kid, the only restaurants that were national were the fast food franchises, which had competition from local outfits that had the same sort of fare and setting.  The locals burger joints are largely gone, save for one I've never been to and which is a "sit down" restaurant, and we have national and regional restaurant chains.  We retain local ones as well.  

We don't have any chain bars, which I understand are a thing, and local brewing, killed off by Prohibition, has come roaring back.

We used to have a local meat processing plant that was in fact a regional one, taking in cattle from the area, and packing it and distributing it back out, including locally.  There are no commercial packing plants in Wyoming now.  The closest one, I think, is in Greeley Colorado, and the packing industry is highly concentrated now.

We don't have a local creamery, either.  We had one of those at least into the 1940s, and probably well beyond that.  The milk for that establishment was supplied by a dairy that was on the south side of town.  It's no longer that and hasn't been for my entire life.

We've been invaded by the super huge law firms that are not local.

Our hospital is part of a private chain now, and there's massive discontent. That discontent took one of the county commissioners that was involved in the transfer of that entity out of county hands down in the last election.  But that hasn't arrested the trend.  My doctor, who I really like is part of a regional practice, not his own local one, anymore.  This trend is really strong.

And then there's Walmart, the destroyer of locally owned stores of every variety.

So would distribution make anything different?

The question is asked by a variant of Wendell Berry's "what are people for", but in the form of "what is an economy for?".

It's to serve people, and to serve them in their daily lives, as people.

It's not to make things as cheap as possible.

On all of the retail things I've mentioned, every single one could be served by local retail stores.  If we didn't have Albertson's, Riddleys and Smith's, we'd have a lot of John Albertson & Son's, Bill Riddley & Family, and Emiliano Smith's stores, owned by their families.  If Walmart didn't exist, and moreover couldn't exist, it would be replaced locally, probably by a half dozen family owned retailers. . . or more.

Prices would in fact be higher, although there would be competition, but the higher prices would serve families who operated them, and by extension the entire community.  And this is just one example.  

Much of the old infrastructure in fact remains.  As discussed above, numerous small businesses remain, and according to economic statistics, small business remains the number one employer in the US.  But the fact is that giant chain corporations have made a devastating impact on the country, making all local business imperiled and some practically impossible to conduct.

Reversing that would totally reorient the local economy.  Almost everyone would work for themselves, or for a locally owned business, owned by somebody they knew personally, and who knew them personally.

And with that reorientation, would come a reorientation of society.

We'll look at that a bit later.  Let's turn towards the agrarian element next.

Last Prior:

What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 4. A Well Educated Society.

Lex Anteinternet: Distributist Notes. Note 1. Distributist Notes. Note 1. A distributist or more distributist society makes democracy work.

Lex Anteinternet: Distributist Notes. Note 1. A distributist or mo...: 

Distributist Notes. Note 1. A distributist or more distributist society makes democracy work.

The more money that is vested in a middle class, with a very broad middle class, and the less that's vested in remote corporate boardrooms, means that the economy itself is vested at the widest possible self-sustaining level.

Jefferson's yeoman, so to speak.

"San Augustine, Texas. A meeting of the town council to discuss buying a new water tank to replace the one which was destroyed by the March tornado. Left to right around the table: Troy Mitchell, city manager; J.W. Ritchie, tinner; H.D. Clark, department store owner; Mayor Alonzo Rushing, druggist; Mr. Ramsey, city attorney; R.V. Hall, grocer; Clyde Smith, grocer; and Frank Phillips, city secretary".  April, 1943.

Conversely, if your economic well-being depends on a giant corporate employer with headquarters far away, you will none the less be inclined to vote their interests, irrespective of whether they are your own.